MUHAMMAD SHAFI KHAN- versus THE STATE
The appeal against interference against the Criminal Procedure Code (CRPC) Section 417 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), section 148/342/220/458 order of the trial court of trial is in a better position for the testimony of witnesses Review the evidence with the benefit of noting. Investigation was conducted when the trial court erroneously misinterpreted the evidence as a whole and reviewed it with inherent illegal proceedings, disregarding the rules and principles of law that have to be reviewed for evidence to be examined. And such wrongdoing is abortion of justice, intervention in appeal against evil, was held then lawfully demanded
s there could be J no doubt that the complainant had received grievous injury .on his nose. We are also of the view that all respondents at the relevant time were police officials and there was no sharing of common object, when respondent No.2 Mukhtar is individually responsible for this illegal act and others with him cannot be burdened with vicarious liability. Moreover, there is no such‑evidence to show that other respondents shared common object with respondent No.2 Mukhtar, who gave fist blow to complainant. Therefore, other respondents should get benefit of doubt but not respondent No.2 against whom case is fully established.
In regard to the question of sentence, however, there are circumstances which persuade us that the extreme sentence is not called for in this case. The incident took place on 13th July, 1970 that is about 14 years ago and he was acquitted on the 28th May, 1979. We would, therefore, allow this appeal against respondent No.2 Mukhtar, only and convict him under section 325, P.P.C. and sentence him to R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000 in default of payment, whereof he would suffer R.I. for 6 months. If the fine is recovered, the same shall be paid to the complainant.
Appeal in respect of the respondents 3 to 6 is dismissed.
M. Y. H. Appeal allowed.
